squads_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources (e.g., users, nodes), or provides confirmation feedback. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and immediately communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails operationally, what happens to squad members or resources, whether the action is reversible, or what confirmation (if any) is returned. Given the tool's potential impact, more contextual information is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'uuid' has 100% schema description coverage ('Squad UUID to delete'), so the schema already provides complete documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond what's in the schema, but with zero parameters needing additional explanation, this meets the baseline for tools with comprehensive schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete an internal squad' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (internal squad), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from other squad operations like 'squads_create' or 'squads_update', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from general deletion tools like 'hosts_delete' or 'users_delete'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., squad must exist), consequences of deletion, or when to choose other squad tools like 'squads_remove_users' for partial removal instead of full deletion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.